Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 May 1995

Vol. 452 No. 8

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rathkeale (Limerick) Meat Factory Irregularities.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

15 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if his attention has been drawn to sworn evidence which was given in a recent case in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, which has now been completed and disposed of, that beef was diverted from the intervention line in a Rathkeale meat factory to commercial contracts in full view of Department officials who were named in the evidence; if this matter has been investigated; and the reason this was allowed to happen by the Department officials concerned. [8942/95]

Noel Ahern

Ceist:

61 Mr. N. Ahern asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the new control measures, if any, that are planned to avoid a repetition of the situation at the Anglo Irish Beef Packers' processing plant at Rathkeale, County Limerick, where a sum of £900,000 was allegedly misappropriated. [8795/95]

Mr. Yates

I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 61 together.

I am aware of the recent case in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. No blame was attached by the court to any Department official and nobody from the Department has been on trial.

These matters were also referred to in the beef tribunal report and the tribunal indicated that having heard the evidence it was satisfied that there was no agreement between the Department staff and the representatives of the company with regard to the irregular activities which occurred there.

The tribunal did comment on the inadequacy of the number of staff employed by the Department in the various meat processing plants throughout the country, mainly at peak periods, and suggested this as a reason for failure to prevent or discover irregularities. However, chapter 25 of the tribunal report sets out the measures taken by the Department to prevent a recurrence of events such as these mentioned in the court case. The tribunal expressed itself as generally satisfied with the measures taken to streamline and improve the control systems. I would like to add that, following the completion of the criminal case, a review of all matters relating to the Department's staff at this meat plant is already under way.

In regard to the precise steps taken to streamline and improve controls at meat plants, I would refer the Deputy to chapter 25 of the beef tribunal report to which I have already referred. This sets out the control changes in considerable detail.

Mr. O'Malley

Is the Minister aware that in this case there is no question of inadequacy of numbers or anything such as that? There is no question of Departmental staff having been on trial or anything of that nature. What is at issue here is the sworn testimony of an employee of this factory, which was not contradicted in the course of the trial, that in the full view of three named officials of the Department there was consistent diversion of beef from the intervention line into a separate line for commercial contracts and that, in that way, the company concerned — not the individuals — made very large sums of money illegally. Why has the Minister failed to condemn that today? Why is it that there is no question of inadequate supervision? If this was supervised, it was allowed to happen and tacit — one might almost say explicit — consent was given to this illegal practice.

Mr. Yates

I hope I did not give the impression to the Deputy that I was in any way condoning the position at Rathkeale.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Minister did not condemn it.

Mr. Yates

I will condemn the position in Rathkeale out of hand. I am quite happy for my Department to facilitate the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions in every way in any matter relating to Rathkeale that they wish to pursue. Separate from that, I have announced here that there will be a review in my Department of the staffing arrangements and the control procedures that were in place in Rathkeale. I will be happy to come back to the House when that review is completed.

Mr. O'Malley

I am not asking the Minister, who announces yet another task force or interdepartmental committee or whatever it is that is supposed to solve all problems, about what he proposes to do in the future. I am asking him what he has to say about the fact that there was sworn and uncontradicted evidence that three named officials of his Department saw meat being illegally removed from the intervention line and put into a section for commercial contracts where it was sold at a high price for the benefit of the company. Why did the three officials condone that? By his actions today is the Minister condoning what they did?

Mr. Yates

I want to be quite clear about this, as the judge was. My Department officials were not on trial in the Dublin Central Criminal Court.

Mr. O'Malley

No one suggested that.

Mr. Yates

They were not found guilty either.

Mr. Cowen

That is because they were not on trial.

Mr. Yates

Exactly, that is my point. None of these people had an opportunity to speak for themselves. The same allegations made by representatives of the meat plant were also made at the beef tribunal against the Department's officials. The tribunal found against that and stated: "The tribunal is satisfied that there was no agreement between them and the representatives of the company with regard to the irregular activities which occurred there". So far as I am concerned, the tribunal had investigated the position in Rathkeale and the matter was handed over to the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would not have been appropriate for me as Minister or the Department to take action, be it disciplinary or other action, until the court proceedings were over. They are now over and we are trying to find the appropriate measures to deal with it and a review is taking place in that regard. This will not be done by a task force but by the assistant secretary in charge of that division.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps we could have a final question.

Mr. O'Malley

Am I to take it that the Minister now proposes to take action? Why did he, his predecessors and the Department wait four and a half years since this event happened? Will he agree there is no question of the three officials having been charged and that, therefore, they could not be found guilty, and that the evidence given on oath, which was not contradicted either at the tribunal or in the court, was that fraudulent activity went on under the eyes of three named officials who did nothing about it? There was no question of their having entered into an agreement to do nothing about it, but it is not good enough that this should have happened openly and continuously and that the Department should have done nothing.

Mr. Yates

It was not my decision. It was open to the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions on the available evidence to press charges against the officials and they did not do so. That was the context of the point I made.

The reason for the four year delay is that it would have been appropriate to determine the question of internal action only after the determination of the legal process to which the question refers. I condemn what happened in Rathkeale but I could not accept what officials from AIBP said without hearing both sides of the story. All Deputy O'Malley's comments are based on statements from employees of AIBP and somebody might say "they would say that, wouldn't they?". I have to balance this in the interests of natural justice and, in fairness, I am acting as speedily as possible to ensure that the matter is put on a footing that is beyond reproach.